Only low-status groups evoke pure low-low derogation, not envied high-status groups.

Evidence

Who came closest to fitting the pure antipathy hypothesis? Poor Blacks, poor Whites, and welfare recipients (along with other groups that depend on the sample, as noted) reliably elicited low marks on both dimensions, which amounts to derogation relative to other clusters. The cluster that reliably scored the lowest on both warmth (student M 2.66, nonstudent M 2.74) and competence (student M 2.29, nonstudent M 2.41) differed significantly (p .01) from the other means in 8 out of 12 comparisons across the two samples. — Susan T. Fiske et al., A Model of (Often Mixed) Stereotype…, 124

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Perceived status drives competence judgments while perceived competition strips warmth from envied outgroups — Susan T. Fiske et al., A Model of (Often Mixed) Stereotype…, 42; Abstract-level middle-cluster stereotypes mask sharp subtype splits within a group. — Susan T. Fiske et al., A Model of (Often Mixed) Stereotype…, 292; Envied successful minorities are prime scapegoat targets, not the weakest groups. — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice: Fifty Years…, 1585

Related

• Low-status groups elicit contempt but still receive less pure derogation than other outgroups. (similarity 0.92)
• High-status groups could plausibly be stereotyped as undeserving rather than competent (similarity 0.86)
• Envied successful minorities are prime scapegoat targets, not the weakest groups. (similarity 0.85)
• Stereotypes do not sour-grape away envied outgroup competence but justify their high status. (similarity 0.84)
• Mixed stereotypes combine high competence with low warmth or vice versa (similarity 0.84)
• Most out-groups elicit mixed prejudice, not pure antipathy (similarity 0.84)
• Successful competing minorities, not weak out-groups, become primary scapegoats (similarity 0.84)
• Envied high-status groups are blamed for their position via perceived control over success. (similarity 0.84)
• Envied out-groups draw low-warmth stereotypes that rationalize their exclusion (similarity 0.83)
• Perceived group power and competition, not negative traits, determine stereotyping and scapegoating (similarity 0.83)
• Low-status groups are less likely than envied minorities to be blamed as scapegoats. (similarity 0.83)
• High-competence groups are judged significantly lower in warmth, yielding mixed stereotypes. (similarity 0.82)
• Low-status groups are less likely scapegoats because they seem incompetent. (similarity 0.82)
• Perceived status drives competence judgments while perceived competition strips warmth from envied outgroups (similarity 0.82)
• Abstract-level middle-cluster stereotypes mask sharp subtype splits within a group. (similarity 0.82)

Broader Connections

• Envied successful minorities are prime scapegoat targets, not the weakest groups. #contradicts (0.82) — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 1585